Author
Topic: Who said Canon cameras suck?!? (Read 87997 times)

Firstly: I did read all of your posts... just don't have time to respond to a lot of it. You do have a lot of good points. I am very sorry I've been a thorn in your side since I asked for advice on buying a 7D ;-) It will surely be a relief to know that I'm going to be off to a different forum soon and will stop bugging you with all of this "7D is noisy!" business. ;-)

Those who will be affected most are probably landscape photographers, and them vastly more so than any other type of photographer. There are a far greater number of photographers who not only use but greatly need higher ISO performance, above ISO 400. For someone such as myself, who rarely uses anything lower than ISO 400, and is usually at ISO 800 or 1600, the 7D performs superbly.

Ah - and now we get to the meat of why you argue with me over this quite often. You aren't mainly focused on landscapes and good low ISO performance. Further, you believe that to be fairly unimportant as a feature of DSLRs. I will give you that "landscapers" are a niche... and I've always maintained that... always caveated my posts by saying that I'm focusing on one aspect (low ISO performance). The whole reason for my current viewpoint that Nikon is better is because they seem to be catering to the landscape niche more than Canon... with better low ISO capabilities, better DR and better ultra wide lenses (Nikon 14-24 is a beast, Canon 16-35 and 17-40 leave a LOT to be desired) and at better prices.

None of that changes the fact that for my purpose Canon sensors are overpriced for the IQ.

Canon lens technology is well ahead of the competition, and rivals if not surpasses that of Ziess these days (you have to use one of their new Mark II supertelephoto lenses to really understand that, they offer the most mind-blowing IQ I've ever encountered.) All other Canon DSLR tech these days, at least when it comes to the cream of the crop, is at the pinnacle of the current generation.

I loved my 70-200 f/4L IS. It was a damn fine lens! I can't say anything more than that personally, but from what I've read your statements are spot on.

Noise is not the issue. Read noise, which only occurs in the lower fraction of the signal, only matters because of how it affects DR, and exhibits when you try to lift shadows. And that only occurs at ISO 100 and ISO 200, and is only worse in a Canon sensor when it is compared to a Sony Exmor sensor.

Yes, which is what is in the competition's camera. A camera that has similar on paper attributes to the 5Dmk3 and less noise and more DR at low ISO and costs $1400 less.

So, sure, the 7D may be inferior at low ISO vs. a whole lot of the competition. However for what it is, the 7D is still one of the best options available to those of us who can't shell out five, six, SEVEN GRAND every few years to buy the likes of a 1D IV, a 1D X, or a D4. The 7D is still the best offering of its class even when pitted against the newer options from Nikon.

Negative. A D600 is only $600 more than a 7D. A 7D is still the right camera for a (possibly large) segment of users that want the AF system and the ability to use Canon telephotos. But for someone entering that "advanced enthusiast" segment I truly believe that the D600 represents a better value. It's not "SEVEN GRAND"... just $2100...

For you personally, friedmud, I must apologize for my original recommendation to get a 7D. I was not aware of your full needs. The 7D is entirely the wrong camera for you, it always was (even before the D800 was released), and always will be. In all honesty, I wouldn't recommend the D800 either, as with its small pixel pitch you would still see the same kind of blue sky noise as the 7D, since that noise has nothing to do with sensor technology, and everything to do with the nature of light. You would really probably be better off with a 1D X or any one of the 12mp cameras from the previous generation of Nikon DSLR's.

Hehe! Don't apologize! It's definitely not your fault! The 7D _is_ a great camera... just, like you say, not the one I was looking for! The blame lies squarely with me... I was trying to do a cheap upgrade and use my existing EFs glass... that didn't really work out for me ;-)

so after looking at this link that was previously posted I actually prefer the 5dmk3 images...

there is also a laundry list of other areas where I think the 5Dmk3 stomps all over the D600so i'm still happily shooting away with my 5Dmk3 and I am extremely thankfull i never wasted any money on a 7D

Well - I just so happen to have a full res jpg that shows the phenomenon well:

What phenomenon? I don't see any noise in that photo. I have to zoom to 100% to detect a tiny unevenness to the pixels in the sky. jrista already covered the science behind this. I'm going to be more practical in my response. If this is what you're talking about...this "phenomenon" which would never be perceptible even in a 36" print...then it's eliminated with a single NR pass (Noise Ninja, 7D profile, auto settings except for turning down sharpening) without any loss of detail in the rest of the image.

Quote

I am NOT mismanaging anything.

You're just purposely getting yourself worked up over absolutely nothing.

Quote

And please don't come at me with "but it won't show up in a 24" print!". I can clearly see the noise on my 30" monitor (2560x1600) at work where I use my photos as my desktop background...

I can't see anything wrong on my calibrated monitor. Sorry.

Quote

What are you trying to prove with that statement? Why do you think ~ISO 400 noise is acceptable at 100?

Are you kidding me? A 3 year old crop sensor has the same measured noise at 100 that Nikon's just released $7,000 full frame flagship has at 400...and you think that's bad performance?

The point...which was quite obvious...is that no one complains about the D4 at ISO 400, and no one hesitates to use it there. If the 7D were so awful at 100, then the D4 couldn't compete or sell at all since it would be awful by 400.

Quote

Ummm... that's exactly what I'm saying. I've been linking to this review quite a bit but I'll do it again:

Don't bother. I'm not going to hold that review higher than DPReview or IR reviews. I don't see the controlled conditions that are necessary to properly evaluate this.

Quote

I went over to the Imaging Resource and compared the Still Life scene for the 7D at ISO 100 and tried to find the ISO setting for the D600 that most closely matched. To me, it was in-between 400 and 800... just like I said a bit ago.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said. I can't find any difference in noise between them at 100. In both images the only texture in the shadow by the cup is the paint on the wall. I can't find noise any where.

What is wrong with your monitor?

Quote

This is a systemic problem with Canon. They simply do not care about LOW ISO performance.

Says who? An ISO hypochondriac?

Quote

Really? The 7D was introduced in mid 2009. That exact same sensor has also been used in:

And Nikon is still using the D7000 sensor. These things cost quite a bit to design and fabricate. They aren't changed every 6 months by anyone in the industry.

The 1DX sensor is brand new, and the 5D3 sensor is upgraded. There's rumors of a new 46 MP sensor, and we will soon see a new APS-C sensor. Canon's not sitting still.

Quote

1. If this is really THE problem and Canon really cared they would license that patent from Sony.

No, they wouldn't. It all depends on what Sony wants in exchange.

Quote

2. If this is really the problem and Canon really cared they would have put the R&D effort in and come up with the advancement first.

Who told you that money always means a company will innovate first? In what fantasy world does this happen?

Quote

3. Why, in 3 years has Canon not come up with a better idea?

Because there are only so many ways to read data off a chip.

Quote

Also, I love how you first say "there is no problem" and then simultaneously blame a Sony patent for the problem. You can't have it both ways. Do Canon sensors have more noise or not?

I can have it both ways. They have more noise at high ISO in many (not all) cases, but it's not so much more as to be a problem.

Quote

Apologist at work.

Hypochondriac at work. I'm sorry, but I've personally known people like you, and I don't have a high tolerance for this. I know a guy that would find a reason to complain if you gave him a brand new Corvette ZR-1. I hate that nonsense. You're looking for a problem that's not there because somebody told you a bigger chip was better. Since you will find a problem whether it's there or not...go buy a bigger chip and enjoy it. But don't lecture the rest of us on IQ.

Yes, which is what is in the competition's camera. A camera that has similar on paper attributes to the 5Dmk3 and less noise and more DR at low ISO and costs $1400 less.

While I believe the 5D3 should be priced lower, paper attributes can be misleading. I would put the 5D3's 1DX-derived AF against the D7000-derived AF on the D600 any day. That might not matter for a landscape photographer, but it does matter for the 5D3's target audience.

Quote

Negative. A D600 is only $600 more than a 7D. A 7D is still the right camera for a (possibly large) segment of users that want the AF system and the ability to use Canon telephotos. But for someone entering that "advanced enthusiast" segment I truly believe that the D600 represents a better value. It's not "SEVEN GRAND"... just $2100...

I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the two at low ISO. I'll grant that the D600 will be more forgiving of exposure errors, and will have a wider DR. But >90% of the time 30" landscape prints...or monitor desktops...from both will look identical.

Quite frankly I was expecting at least some difference given the 6 MP difference.

so after looking at this link that was previously posted I actually prefer the 5dmk3 images...

Why's that? The d600 shots just show the higher dr of the Nikon/Sony sensor, so the images look more compressed and "dull". But you can crank up the contrast in no time, giving it the same "punch" as the 5d3 shots while keeping the ability to capture higher contrast scenes (or screw up more with the exposure). And have more mp at the same time. And a much lower price. Argh - if it wasn't for Magic Lantern I'd be a Nikon user by now, no matter the Canon ergonomics that I like much better.

Firstly: I did read all of your posts... just don't have time to respond to a lot of it. You do have a lot of good points. I am very sorry I've been a thorn in your side since I asked for advice on buying a 7D ;-) It will surely be a relief to know that I'm going to be off to a different forum soon and will stop bugging you with all of this "7D is noisy!" business. ;-)

Thanks for taking the time to debate!

N/P You were only really a thorn back when you first...decided...the 7D wasn't for you. ;P

Those who will be affected most are probably landscape photographers, and them vastly more so than any other type of photographer. There are a far greater number of photographers who not only use but greatly need higher ISO performance, above ISO 400. For someone such as myself, who rarely uses anything lower than ISO 400, and is usually at ISO 800 or 1600, the 7D performs superbly.

Ah - and now we get to the meat of why you argue with me over this quite often. You aren't mainly focused on landscapes and good low ISO performance. Further, you believe that to be fairly unimportant as a feature of DSLRs. I will give you that "landscapers" are a niche... and I've always maintained that... always caveated my posts by saying that I'm focusing on one aspect (low ISO performance). The whole reason for my current viewpoint that Nikon is better is because they seem to be catering to the landscape niche more than Canon... with better low ISO capabilities, better DR and better ultra wide lenses (Nikon 14-24 is a beast, Canon 16-35 and 17-40 leave a LOT to be desired) and at better prices.

None of that changes the fact that for my purpose Canon sensors are overpriced for the IQ.

Sure. I am a landscape photographer as well. Personally, when I have the chance (which is sadly all too infrequently) I do use the 7D for landscapes. It's a "good" camera for that purpose, but definitely not the best. I'd take a D800 over a 7D any day for landscape work. I like my Canon glass far too much (which included the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, which is a DAMN GOOD, solidly built lens that is just as good as the 14-24 from Nikon...the only difference is, well, 2mm on the wide end...THATS IT!! People blow the Nikon 14-24mm lens out of proportion a bit too much.) Since I really love Canon glass, I'm content to sit and wait for Canon to release a good low ISO performer (although at the moment the rumors that are shaping up are a bit dismaying...$9000 price range for Canon's rumored 46.1mp camera?? SAD!) Dynamic range is pretty much the most essential sensor factor for landscape photographers, and I'm glad that SoNikon have made DR a competitive issue. It'll only mean good things in the future.

Noise is not the issue. Read noise, which only occurs in the lower fraction of the signal, only matters because of how it affects DR, and exhibits when you try to lift shadows. And that only occurs at ISO 100 and ISO 200, and is only worse in a Canon sensor when it is compared to a Sony Exmor sensor.

Yes, which is what is in the competition's camera. A camera that has similar on paper attributes to the 5Dmk3 and less noise and more DR at low ISO and costs $1400 less.

Regarding the D600, it will probably be a fantastic entry-level landscape body. However from what I've heard and read so far, its AF system is still a classic Nikon system...an APS-C derived (or actual) unit that very tightly clusters AF points around the very center of the lens. That'll make it tough for the D600 to be useful in types of photography where the AF system is a critical factor, so it kind of limits the D600's versatility. For the average Joe who just wants to make the (now shorter) leap to FF, its a better all-rounder option than the Canon 6D, for sure.

So, sure, the 7D may be inferior at low ISO vs. a whole lot of the competition. However for what it is, the 7D is still one of the best options available to those of us who can't shell out five, six, SEVEN GRAND every few years to buy the likes of a 1D IV, a 1D X, or a D4. The 7D is still the best offering of its class even when pitted against the newer options from Nikon.

Negative. A D600 is only $600 more than a 7D. A 7D is still the right camera for a (possibly large) segment of users that want the AF system and the ability to use Canon telephotos. But for someone entering that "advanced enthusiast" segment I truly believe that the D600 represents a better value. It's not "SEVEN GRAND"... just $2100...

Your still thinking with the landscape cap on, and putting the 7D in the "landscapers bucket". For what it is, which in the case of the 7D is the prosumer or low-end pro wildlife and bird photographer's camera, Nikon still does not have anything that really competes well. The D600 is a full frame camera, which doesn't make it a real competitor...you lose all that extra reach that is one of the key BENEFITTING factors of the 7D. You would need lenses 1.6x longer to have the same reach, which greatly adds to the cost. What you could do with a 400mm lens on a 7D, you would need a 640mm lens on the D600. Since there are only 500mm and 600mm lenses as options, you would at least need a 500mm lens with a 1.4x TC (700mm) to get the same general kind of performance as the 7D for photographing wildlife and birds.

The idea that many photographers have, that larger sensors are just plain and simply better, is kind of a naive viewpoint. So long as pixel density remains higher, a cropped sensor will always offer extra reach above and beyond what a full-frame sensor can. Even a 46.1mp camera from Canon would still fall a little short of the 7D...you would need a 47.6mp sensor to exactly match it, and a 46.1mp camera will never have the same readout rate (unless it has a dedicated crop mode that reduces the pixel area read to only the 1.6x APS-C crop area, and could get 8-9fps.) My guess is that if Canon introduces a FF with 4.3 micron pixels (7D size), then it will introduce an APS-C with even smaller pixels...3.7 microns, maybe 3.5 microns? That would put Canon's flagship APS-C at around 24.3mp to 27.1mp, preserving the reach advantage of APS-C sensors (and again taking the DSLR pixel size crown.)

For what it is, which in the case of the 7D is the prosumer or low-end pro wildlife and bird photographer's camera, Nikon still does not have anything that really competes well.

Connect a battery pack and set the D800 in APS mode and you get a APS camera with 15,3 MP 6 frames per second and you also get a better pixel quality in terms of signal/noise at low iso and similar results at high iso.

From my iPhone

The frame rate is one of the key features of the 7D, and 2fps can mean a LOT (even the 8fps of the 7D is sometimes lacking, and a mere two more frames per second to 10fps can make a useful difference). Comparing a 15.3mp camera @ 6fps is a far cry from an 18mp camera @ 8fps. Additionally, you would have to spend $3500 to get the D800 combo, vs. $1200 for the 7D today ($2300 difference!) On all counts, Nikon doesn't have anything remotely like the 7D that offers a high frame rate with high resolution and a quality AF system in a weather sealed body for a reasonable price.

earwaxxer

My only comment would be that the 40D really did suck! I had one and the shutter quit working. It was several years old, and the 7D just came out so I realized that it was time to upgrade.

I wasnt really ready to upgrade but I'm glad I did. I ended up giving the 40D to a friend of less means. The 7D blows it away in every respect. One other 'Canon sucks' comment would be on some of their 'L' series lenses. I have a couple of their telephotos and I like them. The 70-200 f4 is made pretty cheaply, now the manual focus ring doesnt work right. I have not bought their wide or standard 'L' lenses because I dont believe they compete well with the competition, for the price.

For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?

Pressing the shutter button.

ROFL !!

Why should us Canon customers accept less than stellar IQ (the 20% mentioned by jrista) while paying the equal or higher prices than the Nikon boys do for comparable bodies and get better low ISO noise...and then there are these guys that apologize for Canon's shortfalls; are mistaking us for being anti Canon, which is not the case... we are Canon guys trying to let Canon know that they should not be slacking off. Let’s just say we are trying to be the conscience for Canon (Albeit self serving in this case).

Also before anyone brings up the weak argument that Canon is a large successful corporation and knows what it is doing; let’s just say corporations fail all the time, sometimes they can rectify their failings, sometimes they cannot.

All of us want Canon to succeed and get their priorities where they need to be. We wish them the same excellence that their lens division has been enjoying lately.

Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others.

Ok, I give up. You're right - DxO are technological geniuses, their Scores are the epitome of scientific analysis, the D800 does have 14.4 EV of real, measurable DR, and because of that DR, you were able to recover amazing shadow detail from a backlit shot - detail that revealed a winged pig flying over snowbanks in hell.

Whatever.

There are a lot of silly Nikon fanboy posts. However, the vast majority of the criticism of DxO comes from people who not only do NOT understand this stuff better than DxO, most of the critics on closer examination have no idea what they are talking about. You would think that showing a little humility would be good form when criticizing someone who knows this stuff in some depth (as vague hand waving doesn't cut it when you implement software -- you need to have a very solid grounding in the theory behind it)

Most of the critics, however, despite (or perhaps because of) knowing very little have no such inhibitions. Indeed, it seems that the less knowledgeable the critic, the less nuanced and the more forceful the criticism.

It could well be the case that there is a better method to benchmark sensors than those used by DxO -- however, no-one (including the know-nothing loudmouth camera "fans" on the internet) is able to present and follow through on better methods.

The criticism of the 14.4 stops for the 14 bit ADC is not only just plain wrong (their method is just fine -- the point is that you gain dynamic range by downsampling), it's also a bit of a red herring when you're comparing cameras of comparable resolution. Those who object to downsampling (usually because they don't understand it) are welcome to the screen numbers instead never mind that this number is only relevant if you customarily view images as 100% crops. The screen numbers also show the Canon sensor struggling at low ISOs).

+1

(now that some seem to be starting to think you are correct, they are left with a comeback of "whatever" haha)

A method that produces impossible data is flawed, no matter how you rationalize it. The 'whatever' was not an acknowledgement that the rebuttal was correct, but rather boredom and a realization of the futility of arguing the point further.

A method that produces impossible data is flawed, no matter how you rationalize it. The 'whatever' was not an acknowledgement that the rebuttal was correct, but rather boredom and a realization of the futility of arguing the point further.